The Hill (Op-Ed): Internet voting remains a risky method of casting election ballots

Millions of Americans with disabilities face unconscionable obstacles to voting. Our organizations, and many others, are working to make voting safe and accessible to all, but change isn’t happening fast enough. Frustrated, and justifiably so, some advocates for people with disabilities see internet voting as the solution.

Unfortunately, online voting is not yet a secure method of casting a ballot. The risks are many. Malware on a voter’s personal device could alter a voter’s selections or replace ballot images with fakes. Experts have noted that “Consumer-grade devices with consumer-grade protections are no match for a motivated attacker, particularly if the attacker is a nation-state.” Targeted denial of service attacks could disenfranchise thousands of voters and alter election outcomes.  Voter authentication credentials could be stolen. The list goes on.

If we can bank and shop from our phones, why can’t we vote online? The answer is straightforward: online banking and shopping aren’t actually safe, as Verified Voting notes. Online transaction fraud costs banks, credit card companies, and merchants billions of dollars every year. Fraud on that scale would be catastrophic in an election. To make matters worse, online voting fraud would be far more difficult to detect than financial identity theft because unlike online banking, voters don’t receive a statement of their transaction. How would you know, for example, that your vote had been switched in transit?

It is possible that one day, we can develop an online system of voting that is secure, reliable and preserves voter privacy. But that is not possible with the technology that exists today. This is not only our thinking — it’s the consensus of many experts, including the National Academies of Sciences, the Center for Security in Politics at UC Berkeley’s internet voting security working group,  headed by former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and four government agencies. The FBI, the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Election Assistance Commission, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have stated, “Electronic ballot return faces significant security risks…. [that] can ultimately affect the tabulation and results and, can occur at scale.”

We don’t have to throw in the towel on accessible voting, though. We have a moral imperative to change the status quo. Insufficient training of poll workers, logistical hurdles, and more undermine the right of voters with disabilities to cast a ballot privately and independently. Obstacles like poorly marked parking spaces, too-narrow doorways, and blocked paths of travel through facilities can hinder a voter from successfully casting a ballot. It is estimated that in the 2020 presidential election, nearly 2 million voters with disabilities experienced voting difficulties. And in some parts of the country, voting has become even more burdensome.

There are many actions that boards of elections, county officials, and states leaders can take. As recommended by the National Disability Rights Network, election officials can recruit individuals with disabilities to be poll workers, and assign a dedicated person to anticipate and address barriers for voters with disabilities.

Expanding accessibility options like curbside voting also brings more inclusion to the voting process. At least 27 states require or allow polling sites to offer curbside voting. Some jurisdictions — including Orange County, Calif.; Fulton County, Ga.; and Kane County, Ill. — use mobile voting units that travel to different spots throughout the early voting period to offer voters an alternative to fixed-location poll sites. More states and localities must follow their lead.

Voting is set to begin in the 2024 election in the coming months, and national security experts have warned that our election infrastructure is still under attack by international and domestic actors. As we continue to work to identify and implement solutions to address the challenges voters with disabilities face, we must not sacrifice the security or privacy of their votes. Fulfilling the recommendations from the NIST report on voting accessibility is an important start. Until these problems are fully and effectively addressed across the 50 states, voters with disabilities will continue to be unjustly deprived of their right to vote.

Susannah Goodman is the Director of the Election Security Program at Common Cause. Susan Greenhalgh is the Senior Advisor on Election Security for Free Speech For People. Lawrence Norden is Senior Director of the Elections and Government program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law.

 

To view this piece online, click here.